Case Law Details
Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs UOI & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: Since the delivery of the notice of reassessment could not be made at the address of assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company however, no such steps were taken, therefore, service of notice was not complete and reopening of assessment was invalid.
Held: Assessee–individual was a widowed lady had never filed return of income since she did not have any taxable income. After the death of her husband, she resided mostly with her sisters at Jabalpur. AO issued a notice of reopening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 and notice was dispatched for delivery through post. It was returned by the postal authority with a remark “left”. According to AO, the address in the said postal communication was as stated by the assessee in her PAN which she never requested to be changed. On the basis of such notice and the postal despatch, AO carried on the assessment for the said Assessment Year. AO passed a reassessment order seeking recovery of assessee’s tax dues as assessee had entered into various high value transactions such as cash deposits in the bank account, purchase of mutual funds, sale and purchase of immovable properties, etc. Assessee contended that she was completely unaware and oblivion to such proceedings since she was no longer residing at the address indicated in her PAN card and the entire assessment thus proceeded ex-parte. Only upon being telephonically informed about certain despatches by the Department, she rushed from Jabalpur to Mumbai and gathered basic information. She, therefore, filed the Writ Petition challenging the reopening of the assessment and the consequential actions taken by the Department. It was held as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 127 for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 282, the addresses to which a notice or a summons, etc. may be delivered or transmitted, shall be as per the sub-rule (2). Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 127 includes four sources of address for such transmission. First one being the address available in PAN database of the addressee. It was at this address that the notice in question was despatched. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) provides that the said communication shall not be delivered at any of the above mentioned addresses where the assessee has furnished any other address for such purpose, which is not in the present case. The further proviso to sub-rule (2) which is of considerable importance to us provides that where communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the addresses mentioned in item Nos.(i) to (iv) or the address furnished by the assessee as per the first proviso, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the addresses given below the said further proviso. At item No.(i) is the address of the assessee as available with the Banking company or a cooperative bank to which Banking Regulations Act, 1949 applies. Since the delivery of the notice could not be made at the address of the assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company. No such steps were taken. Service of notice, therefore, was not complete. Reopening of assessment was invalid.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 13.2.2019 and the consequential actions taken by the respondents pursuant to such notice. The brief facts are as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
